DNA typing for forensic identification is a two-step process. The first step involves determining the profiles of samples collected at the crime scene and comparing them with the profiles obtained from suspects and the victims. In the case of a match that includes the suspect as the potential source of the material collected at the crime scene, the last step in the process is to answer the question, what is the likelihood that someone in addition to the suspect could match the profile of the sample studied? This likelihood is calculated by determining the frequency of the suspect's profile in the relevant population databases. The design of forensic databases and the criteria for comparison has been addressed by the NRC report of 1996 (National Research Council, 1996). However, the fact that geographical proximity, migrational patterns, and even cultural and social practices have effects on subpopulation structure establishes the grounds for further study into its effects on the calculation of probability of occurrence values. The issue becomes more relevant in the case of discrete polymorphic markers that show higher probability of occurrence in the reference populations, where several orders of magnitude difference between the databases may have an impact on the jury. In this study, we calculated G values for all possible pairwise comparisons of allelic frequencies in the different databases from the races or subpopulations examined. In addition, we analyzed a set of 24 unrelated Caucasian, 37 unrelated African-American, and 96 unrelated Sioux/Chippewa individuals for seven polymorphic loci (DQA1, LDLR, GYPA, HBGG, D7S8, GC, and D1S80). All three sets of individuals where sampled from Minnesota. The probability of occurrence for all seven loci were calculated with respect to nine different databases: Caucasian, Arabic, Korean, Sioux/Chippewa, Navajo, Pueblo, African American, Southeastern Hispanic, and Southwestern Hispanic. Analysis of the results demonstrated marked differences in the probabilities of occurrence when individuals were compared to the different populations and subpopulation databases. The possible genetic and forensic consequences of subpopulation structure on probability calculations are discussed.